Posted on 02/19/2016 6:36:53 AM PST by Enlightened1
Here is what the Constitution says about who can be president:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The problem is the Constitution doesn't define "natural born Citizen." Neither does any current law. And no one has ever brought a court case to decisively settle the question as a matter of US law.
There are three ways someone can be a US citizen. He can be born in the US (regardless of who his parents are). He can be born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met (those criteria are set by federal law and have been changed over time). Or he can immigrate here and then successfully apply for citizenship, a process called naturalization.
Everyone agrees that the first category of people are natural-born citizens. Everyone agrees that the third category of people are not natural-born citizens (regardless of how unfair it might be that immigrants can't be president). But Ted Cruz is in the middle category, and this is where the meaning of "natural born" starts to get fuzzy.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
But..... but..... but, I thought that nobody has standing to file such a suit. That is what many different judges told us when the suits were filed against the kenyan.
Speaking engagements are bringing in big bucks, too. All his money went to media people and overpaid friends.
I was appalled when Obama first ran that such a question could exist. I'd always assumed there was a process to authenticate eligibility. The fact that the 'pubs didn't do something in Obama's first term to get such a commission in place is just plain incomprehensible.
You'd think Cruz would've initiated such an endeavor. Now the primaries are going to be negatively impacted for him because the unanswered question won't be answered.
It's one of the things that makes me wonder how strategic and intelligent Cruz really is.
No kidding? I used to live in Kaneohe on O'ahu, but I've never been to the state of Hawai'i...
As to Obama, he doesn't have American parentS.
Ok....if you say so.
Not that the rest of the universe is governed by that.
Well, standing is going to be a problem and this will DRAG ... which is the real problem for him.
If that's the case, then why did William Blackstone, James Madison, and a whole boatload of early American legal experts say exactly the opposite?
WKA referred to the 14th amendment. You could too.
That is my feeling as well. I have been on the fence between Trump and Cruz. Trump keeps shooting off his mouth and Cruz continues to sidestep this issue. We all know Cruz is smart. So if he had full confidence in his ability to withstand this argument, he would be shouting it to every news organization in the U.S. His avoidance and failure to confidently refute this issue makes me suspect he is hoping to get to the convention and be the nominee.
He is taking the Obama approach. At that point, he is betting the press and courts will let it go like they did with O. However, because his is an R, it will be a full court press and media frenzy designed to undermine and derail his candidacy. Freepers would do well to stop the pissing matches and realize this. It won’t go away after the convention.
“As a Cruz supporter, I actually see this as good news.”
As do I, Trump only brought this up to muddy the waters, this will serve to clarify the matter.
could not natural born mean you were born of an american parent? Or does it have to be on american soil? what about ambassadors kids, military overseas?
The requirements in the Constitution are not determined by any subsequent legislation.
It all boils down to standing and regardless how we think of standing the courts will determine who has it.
My question is this court is a little meaning state court and has no jurisdiction over a federal issue such as this. There decision, regardless what it is, will have no effect.
I have pointed out that "weight of scholarship" can be troublesome, such as when weight of scholarship was that the RKBA is a collective right. Legal scholars are, by and large, anti-nationalist and pro-government.
I wonder how much funding Soros has been pumping into the effort to smear and discredit Cruz. Before he was in the running for president, you didn’t hear the comments about his ‘smarminess’, weasel look, or that he he doesn’t look trustworthy like you’re hearing now. Before he was viewed as a smart Constitutionalist who stood up for the American people and did so. I suspect Soros is behind much of this and has been utilizing his media manipulators and celebrity influence to smear Cruz’s reputation because he CANNOT have a Constitutionalist standing in his way to lay waste to his evil plans. I think we need to step back and look at the bigger picture. I think our emotions and opinions are being manipulated to divide us to ensure that a socialist takes office Jan 20, 2017. Just my opinion.
Agree ... let’s put his eligibility to bed for good.
I agree with you about standing both of the plaintive and the court.
Ted Cruz is a superb lawyer and is at ease with going to court. Saying that he will be troubled by the prospect of being in a court action is like saying Jesse Owen in his prime would no doubt have feared putting on track shoes and running in a sprint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.